• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
I like it because I believe the public interest is served by knowing whether a candidate has potential issues in their past financial dealings that may affect their ability to govern. (Possible conflicts of interest, their donations to charity, etc.)

And while (in theory) a voter could still make a personal decision without the tax info, information disclosed in tax forms is virtually guaranteed to be accurate (compared to information from other sources that may possibly be incorrect).
Click to expand...

Those voters who think it is an issue can choose to not vote for the candidate. Those who support the decision to not show them can vote for them.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Those voters who think it is an issue can choose to not vote for the candidate. Those who support the decision to not show them can vote for them.
Click to expand...
There are voters who may not think there is an issue (so a failure to release the taxes wouldn't be an issue), but what WOULD have been revealed in the taxes would have caused them to their vote.

Kind of like how Trump didn't release his taxes because he supposedly donated to NAMBLA. (Well, that's what people are talking about...). People didn't care that he didn't release his taxes, because the truth was so bizarre and disturbing that it never occurred to people it would be an issue.
 
Segnosaur said:
There are voters who may not think there is an issue (so a failure to release the taxes wouldn't be an issue), but what WOULD have been revealed in the taxes would have caused them to their vote.

Kind of like how Trump didn't release his taxes because he supposedly donated to NAMBLA. (Well, that's what people are talking about...). People didn't care that he didn't release his taxes, because the truth was so bizarre and disturbing that it never occurred to people it would be an issue.
Click to expand...

And how to handle that situation should be entirely up to the individual choices of the candidate and individual voter. If a voter is comfortable with that risk, I don't see a need to interfere with the candidate's decision.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Those voters who think it is an issue can choose to not vote for the candidate. Those who support the decision to not show them can vote for them.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly the way it is now. You asked Segnosaur why he would like to see something different and he answered you. Do you disagree with his response?
 
Segnosaur said:
I like the bill. I just don't know if it would pass constitutional muster. Wouldn't the candidate challenge it on 4th amendment privacy issues?
Click to expand...

Also, I don't think Rhode Island has enough electoral votes or delegate votes in party conventions for it to make much difference. Now if New York or California were to enact such a law, and it was upheld by the courts, we'd have something.
 
Segnosaur said:
I like the bill. I just don't know if it would pass constitutional muster. Wouldn't the candidate challenge it on 4th amendment privacy issues?
Click to expand...

I can't see why? It only applies to someone seeking high office, and thus is voluntary.

Mind you - I can't understand how asset forfeiture isn't a Fourth Amendment violation. And no, I don't buy the dodge that it's the state against the asset and not the owner.
 
Trump tweets

"80% of Mexico’s Exports come to the United States. They totally rely on us, which is fine with me. They do have, though, very strong Immigration Laws. The U.S. has pathetically weak and ineffective Immigration Laws that the Democrats refuse to help us fix. Will speak to Mexico!"
 
Steve said:
Yes, that is exactly the way it is now. You asked Segnosaur why he would like to see something different and he answered you. Do you disagree with his response?
Click to expand...

The problem becomes, what do you do when an electorate doesn't care that a candidate is corrupt?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

"80% of Mexico’s Exports come to the United States. They totally rely on us, which is fine with me. They do have, though, very strong Immigration Laws. The U.S. has pathetically weak and ineffective Immigration Laws that the Democrats refuse to help us fix. Will speak to Mexico!"
Click to expand...

Mexico to build a wall on its southern border and the US will pay for it...
 
Trump threatens a 20% tariff on European Cars.
If that happens, retaliation will happen immeditaly.
Yeah, Trade Wars are so easy to win....
 
dudalb said:
Trump threatens a 20% tariff on European Cars.
If that happens, retaliation will happen immeditaly.
Yeah, Trade Wars are so easy to win....
Click to expand...

Especially since many of them are built in such European countries as Tenessee, and South Carolina.....
 
> House has a hardliner and a moderate immigration bill. The leaders are trying to garner support for the moderate version.
> Trump says he won't sign the moderate version.
> White House says Trump was mistaken, and would sign it.
> Trump meets with House Republicans, says he supports both bills 100%. They are dubious.
> Trump now says it is all a waste of time and to put it off until after midterms.

Usually Presidents aren't in a rush to become lame ducks, no?
 
Border Reiver said:
Especially since many of them are built in such European countries as Tenessee, and South Carolina.....
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on this, and I am willing to be corrected, but I think cars actually have to be imported from Europe for the Tariffs to apply. If a car is made in the US, it's a US car for legal purposes, regardless of the make and who owns the factory. At least that is my understanding.
 
Interesting threadreader unrolled twitter thread about Trump's plans for reorganising the government

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1010205853985792000.html

Overall, it privatizes a lot, cuts, & consolidates power.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf

Under the Plan, the govt sells off the US Postal Service, FAA, eliminates more than a 1/3rd of the US Public Health Corps, restructures all foreign aid & development programs, and places every single domestic program for poor families & children under a single welfare authority.
The Plan also offers a real estate bonanza for developers, selling off federal properties en masse. And it cuts or restructures all the fedl progs that are meant to educate people about their financial rights & protect them from bank & mortgage fraud.

The #Trump plan cuts R&D @NASA and all forms of alternative energy development are consolidated under a single DOE agency. A Dept of Welfare is created, and all forms of support for health of America's poor leave @HHS & go to new Welfare authority.

The Plan facilitates "streamlined" privatization of federal assets via a Customer Experience (CX) Improvement Capability.
It transfers all background/conflicts checks on fedl appointees and employees AWAY from @FBI and into the Dept. of Defense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Blue Mountain said:
I'm going to need a citation for that before I believe it.
Click to expand...
It's being reported on CNN and MSNBC. In addition, it's clear the removal of the children was poorly planned in the first place.

Snopes: Does the United States Have a Plan to Reunite Children Separated From Parents at the Border?
No protocols have been put in place for keeping track of parents and children concurrently, for keeping parents and children in contact with each other while they are separated, or for eventually reuniting them. Immigration lawyers, public defenders, and advocates along the border have been trying to fill the void.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom